"Now, as volcanic ash strangles the nation's transportation back into the 19th century," CBS News breathlessly reported today, "the modern marvel of television is poised to shake the foundations of UK politics."

Yes, television – a device invented by the Wright brothers and similar to a large iPad – has only recently reached the shores of Britain, according to the US and Canadian media in its coverage of yesterday's leaders' debate. It wasn't hard to sense a haughty tone of "What took you so long?" – or disappointment from those expecting "the vicious exchanges often seen in parliament," according to the Associated Press write-up.

"The problem with history in the making is that it's often deadly dull to watch," wrote Time's London bureau chief Catherine Mayer. Still, said Henry Chu of the Los Angeles Times, "it was a momentous occasion for a political culture steeped in so much tradition, handed down over centuries, that any innovation is cause for hand-wringing and alarm." Much like repealing the Corn Laws. The Washington Post had TV critic Tom Shales watch, and he declared the debate "packed solid with relevant facts, cogent arguments and deftly turned phrases," although "the very qualities that made the British debate seem more dignified and civilized were likely to make it seem stuffy and strait-laced to many American viewers."

Being American, Shales was fascinated by the healthcare debate, and the British institution he thinks is called "the National Health":

[I]f Americans have had presidential debates for 50 years, the British have had – and been complaining about – 'the National Health' since 1948. Questions about the National Health Service contained details that could well give the jitters to Americans already worried about recently approved health-care reform. Brown vowed that henceforth, all necessary operations would be performed within 18 weeks of diagnosis, which didn't sound very speedy and made one wonder how long the wait is now.

Andrew Sullivan, the well-known (and British) blogger at the Atlantic, had a more informed view: "My bottom line: Cameron narrowly won this. But, apart from the tedium and politeness of the thing, my biggest take-away is about the boundaries of the debate. They are remarkably constrained compared with the current debate in the US."

Other than Sullivan, the US coverage was almost unanimous in showering Nick Clegg with praise, so much so that Clegg should start hanging around Iowa and New Hampshire. Dan Balz of the Washington Post, arguably the best US political journalist, summed it up: "[I]n Thursday's debate, Clegg broke through in ways that neither of his two rivals could. In the short-term, he will be the story of the campaign." (Balz also described the debate as "lively".)

John Burns, the British-Canadian veteran New York Times correspondent in London, dismissed the event as dull compared with the historic debates of US presidential elections past, and bemoaned that there was "no obvious gaffes, no memorable one-liners, little by way of humor, scarcely anything likely to be remembered as a decisive game-changer". Like everyone else, Burns scored it for Clegg:

Mr Clegg, 43, seized the opportunity with a performance that matched his telegenic looks with astute attacks on Labour and the Conservatives.

One of the most entertaining write-ups in the North American media came in Canada's Globe and Mail, from correspondent Doug Saunders, who had a stern critique of David Cameron:

Mr Cameron generally avoided appearing to be the aristocratic, expensively educated leader of what was once known as "the nasty party," though he tilted his message sharply to the right on the red-meat conservative issues of crime, immigration and the military – even suggesting at one point that Britain needs to keep its nuclear arsenal because a war with China is possible.

He pitched many of his messages over the heads of the mainstream electorate to what his party sees as a "silent majority" of angry voters.... Mr Cameron's efforts to suggest that the government was a hotbed of waste and overspending sounded rather like the rant of a London taxi driver.

But who is Nick Clegg? "The 43-year-old looked relaxed with his hand resting in his pocket," AP reported. CBS News's Tucker Reals declared: "Britain is a very old, tradition-obsessed nation. Change comes slowly. But it's coming, and it looks like Nick Clegg."